Talk:Sudoku/Archive 2

This archive page covers approximately the dates between Sep 23, 2005 and Nov 8, 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Sudoku/Archive 3. (See How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. angusj 03:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Variants
The graphic for the 'four groups' variant vanished - why? Lovingboth 29 Jun 05


 * It wasn't a graphic - it was rendered in text characters. Besides, it was taking up too much space for something so tangential.  Also, the "example" was useless: it was an unsolved puzzle, demonstrating nothing.  If it weren't for the fact that actual useful data were buried in it, the original edit that put those diagrams there in the first place would have been vandalism; it was written in the style of a forum post - not an encyclopedia article - complete with opinions.  One sentence was quite sufficient to describe the logic of that grid, so that's what I replaced it with.  - ZM Zotmeister 29 June 2005 20:28 (UTC)

"...with Ebb regularly publishing some ..." What is Ebb? I've scoured the web and cannot find an explanation. Please explain or remove.


 * You should have searched for "Ebb publishing". They are a puzzle magazine publisher in the United States, serving as competitor to Dell.  They may be a second-string brand name under Kappa, in much the same way Penny Press is now a second-string brand name under Dell.  If I add Official to the list, you have pretty much the entire puzzle magazine rack at any store in that country.  Ebb is apparently most noted (or at least most referenced on the web) for their Picture Word-Finds magazine.  - ZM Zotmeister 5 July 2005 19:08 (UTC)

I guess that there is a bug in the text: where its writen 7×7 I guess its 7×6 or 6×7, can someone check that? --Jorge Florêncio 18:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)--195.23.244.112 18:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I wrote that, and I assure you it's correct as "7&times;7"; the puzzle in question was also republished in the World Puzzle Championships book series by Random House (I forget which volume) and an issue of GAMES World of Puzzles. Of course, the fact a Sudoku puzzle must be square should be a big hint...  As it happens, one of the two Quadrum Quandary puzzles on my LiveJournal is 7&times;7.  - ZM


 * Your right, sorry, i was just confused by the fact this puzzle variant couldnt have sub parts with igual form (unless sub parts are columns or rows, but that would be too easy), its true it as to be square and 7x6 never could be or it'll miss always a number in every column. Thanks for your response.--Jorge Florêncio 19:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I made a correction to the following text - Kokonotsu (a 9-letter Japanese word that simply means nine). In reality the Japanese word is made of only 4 characters. 9 is just the length in roman character transcription. I removed 9-letter as it is bound to cause confusion and the spread of misinformation.

External link explosion (discussion/vote)
Firstly, I whole heartedly agree with Matt's action in bringing the External Links section here for review. It's better to have no links than the mish-mash it had become. However, I think this section could be restored based on a crude vote below giving reasons for worthy links. Links which haven't underegone this review process should be removed. Links could also be voted off in the same manner. Only exceptional links (be it to software, solving techniques or whatever) should be considered, up to a reasonable and agreed maximum. Once the maximum links (eg 20) has been reached, existing entries would need to be voted off as part of endorsing a new entry.

Finally, I'd like to propose Matt as the arbiter as to when a link has reached a critical concensus. --angusj 04:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Some sort of discussion about "worthy" links would be good &mdash; this article does need some external links ;-). I don't know whether a vote is the only way that could work, but it's certainly one way. &mdash; Matt Crypto  09:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * How about a seperate page for all the other links not included? Not common I know but this article seems to have a strange attraction for links. Even if we do decide on what to include its going to take constant reverting because of people who don't read Talk, a seperate links page would solve that. CiaronNixon
 * Looking at the current status of the article I think the above is a good idea, as an encyclopedia the only links should be references actually used to write the article, it looks good this way as can be seen from the current state. However since wikipedia is different in that it is an online encyclopedia i think some facility for linking to other resources is needed, a seperate page would be an ideal solution in my opinion. CiaronNixon 11:54, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Note: If you vote please make sure you include your wiki signature (4 tildes).

Question - are you allowed to put your site forward for consideration, or does it have to be known to the voting members? (Paul, non-registered)

Answer - Yes, of course, as long as you genuinely feel your site is exceptional. If in doubt, have a good look at all the links above and ask yourself - "does my site really represent an exceptional contribution, or am I just another trying to generate traffic to my site?"--angusj 23:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Links for inclusion
The sudoku.com Forum Votes for: angusj (the original and most active discussion forum hosted by Pappocom) Votes against:

[http://www.sudokuprime.com/ Multi-user Sudoku puzzle to play with your friends. Requires Shockwave player.] Votes for: Olivierverdin (Love this site, requires shockwave player and it works fine!) Votes against: angusj (broken site, certainly not exceptional.)

Sudoku Programmers Forum Votes for: angusj (excellent discussion esp. re advanced solving techniques), CiaronNixon (seconded), PaulStephens (thirded) Votes against: Michael Mepham's Forum Votes for: angusj (1/2 vote: another active forum, though no where near as good as the 2 above); PaulStephens (agreed - I'd pick this over sudoku.com, because the latter is heavily focussed on Pappocom's commercial product rather than general sudoku matters). Votes against:

Essential Links to Sudoku Votes for: Douglebert (a listing of external links with featured sites based on click through popularity; addresses most of the issue of the external link explosion while still providing an option for users interested in Sudoku) Votes against: angusj (not keen on links to other lists)

Sudoku Little Helper Votes for: CiaronNixon (solver with very neat interface, no clutter) Votes against: angusj (requires installing an ActiveX control)

Tutorials at Sudoku Addict Votes for: CiaronNixon (good walkthrough tutorial) Votes against: angusj (OK, but not exceptional)

The Daily Sudoku Puzzle Votes for: CiaronNixon (clean site, proper puzzles (sym etc), solver with good interface) Votes against: angusj (OK, but not exceptional)

Let's Make Sudoku! (Same content but from Nikoli) Votes for: CiaronNixon (excellent tutorial for making sudoku by hand); angusj (I agree - excellent, nothing comparable) ; PaulStephens (agree - this really is exceptional, although the translation to English is mystifying in places) Votes against:

Paul's Pages Votes for: PaulStephens [a shorter version of my earlier pitch!] Free online generator/player/solver with symmetrical, single-solution puzzles, graded puzzle gallery, pencilmarks, import/export, solving tutorial. IE/Firefox compatible, no downloads or plugins required. ; angusj (agree, a very good site, clear instructions & uncluttered) Votes against: nxn (Hardly exceptional. Have to click before you see a puzzle, rather slow, non-symmetrical puzzles or buggy in some browsers.)

[http://www.sudoku-league.com/ Sudoku League. ] Votes for: [Marek] (Free, online Sudoku tournament. It's not well-known, but prospective.) Votes against: angusj (Certainly not exceptional)

Sudoku Directory Votes for: Votes against: This is far from exceptional. angusj

I'm sorely tempted to delete the 2 'proposals' above (I'll leave that to someone else). It's obviously difficult for people to be objective about their own site so I'd like to strongly discourage anyone proposing their own site from now on. --angusj 23:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

PrintSudoku Magic Sudokus. (This has been added without consensus twice in the past few days, so this time I'm moving it here. I should just delete it and notify someone about the fledgling edit war, but I'm a nice guy. --Jay (Histrion) 13:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC) ) Votes for: Votes against:

Sudoku Assistant A very efficient JavaScript-based helper/solver allowing very quick input of text-block or string-based SudoKu code. But what makes this one interesting is that it demonstrates the equivalence of X-Wings, Swordfish, and higher-order circuits, and shows that they are simply n x n grid patterns. Hansonrstolaf 15:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * There hasn't been much interest in 'voting' here so far - so I can only presume people are generally happy with the current situation. I really don't believe that the Sudoku/Resources pages is appropriate for Wikipedia (especially where there's no editorial control over it) but unless others are vocal about this too, I'll just shut up and see what happens. The little that can be gleaned from the 'votes' above is that it would be reasonable to add Let's Make Sudoku! and Sudoku Programmers Forum to References on the main page. --angusj 04:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd come to the conclusion that to be fair, the main page should either have no links to other sites (except those which met the 'References' criteria), or be open to anyone, in which case it would have grown uncontrollably. I think the separate Resources page is a good compromise. It may get messy, and it may not be in the spirit of Wikipedia, but it doesn't intrude on the main page and it does provide a service to readers. PaulStephens 08:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

There are 6670903752021072936960 Sudoku grids and There are 5472730538 essentially different Sudoku grids as links for the mathematics section. Hv 02:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Inlined, no separate reference required. Hv 02:43, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have died out. I will therefore take the freedom to include the suggested links that have no votes against them. That is: The sudoku.com Forum, Sudoku Programmers Forum, Michael Mepham's Forum and Let's Make Sudoku!. I also really think the first link should be to a sudoku generator page. I picked http://www.websudoku.com for now; please replace it if you know a better page. I also kept the link to Sudoku/Resources name "More links". This does not mean I endorse the ide of a links page, but I do not see a concensus to remove it now. --Apoc2400 19:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There's no where near enough votes to say whether links should be included or not. Also "Web Sudoku" wasn't even nominated and should not have been included. CiaronNixon 20:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If you disagree with the links I added, then change them instead of removing them. The current situation with only the "Links to other Sudoku resources" link is not acceptable. --Apoc2400 19:46, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think www.websudoku.com is a good choice. It doesn't provide any help if you get stuck, and can't solve the puzzle. It can't compute the pencilmarks for you. The Paul's Page site mentioned above is much better. Lots of features but quite confusing for beginners (so many buttons). I can't see a way to get a hint. The best site I've found is Sudoku Hints, which has tabs for five difficulty levels, pencilmarks, undo/redo, multiple grid sizes and most important: hints and single step with explanation. Even with all these features it's an easy to use interface. Voting summary: websudoku.com, against. www.paulspages.co.uk, against. www.sudokuhints.com, for. --Kristinw 01:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Number-Logic.com
 * I had my site listed on the references page and only just now noticed that it had been pulled down. I would like to see what you guys think of my site in the hopes that you will see its worth having on the list.  www.number-logic.com  I have several daily puzzles and will soon be adding features to keep time and a user log of what puzzles you have completed.  Thanks.  John

Ok I have had this up here for a while now and no one seems to care, yet if I add my like it gets pulled down right away. My site has much better stuff then websudoku, whats the deal? ~john
 * I guess because the concensus is it's not sufficiently better to justify the change. I'm happy with the current choice. --angusj 22:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * yeah but why is it up to you?
 * It's not up to me - that's not how wikipedia works. I'm just one (perhaps vocal) voice with one vote. If you read this page carefully you'll see that decisions are made by consensus not by one or two (and on several occasions you'll see that I haven't agreed with but have accepted the consensus). --angusj 23:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The Wiki principle has failed in this instance. There's no consensus, and in the absence of one individuals keep taking uniliateral action that makes things worse. The recent removal of the Resources page, and reinstatement of a few direct links from the main page, managed to break the principle that Wikipedia shouldn't be a links repository, give enormous advantage to an arbitrarily-chosen 'few', and deprive readers of the choice given to them by the old resources page. Not bad going for a couple of edits.

I do have a personal beef here, in that Apoc2400's decision to include just those sites that didn't have a vote against them excluded mine, even though the single (effectively anonymous) vote against it seemed to be scraping the barrel to find negatives ('Have to click before you see a puzzle'!!). Does that mean that if I go back and vote against the others (citing, perhaps, 'have to press key to enter number'), they'll all be taken out? On principle they should, but of course that's nonsense - just like the original selection method.

As I said in a recent post, I think it's fair that there should either be no direct links to non-Reference sites from the main page, or it should be open to anyone. For that reason I will 'take the freedom' to add my site back in, and I don't expect to see it removed unless someone has a better reason than "I've decided that Web Sudoku will be the only generator we link to, so I'm killing off everything else." OTOH, if we go back to having no direct links, I will respect that perfectly happily. PaulStephens 10:18, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd ask you to add your link only with consensus. Your argument is that either we should either have no links or allow them all. However, Wikipedia practice, and common sense, is that we should pick a handful of web sites that are representative. The reader only needs one site of a certain type. Sometimes that means the editors choosing one out of several similar candidates, but that's the luck of the draw. I understand that you want your site to get traffic and search engine rankings etc, but it's not a good idea to force the inclusion of a link to your own website. &mdash; Matt Crypto  10:29, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * What I dont understand is how you plan to come to a consensus when you have only 4 or 5 people who have ever even cared enough about the links to come to this page and say something. If 2 people say ok, does that make a consensus of what internet users everywhere want? I'm sure its a statistically significant sample (see the wiki entry for sarcasm.)  ~john

I see that other people have added their own links to the section where I had mine, and they have no been pulled down. I don't understand you guys, but since you don't seem to care anymore I will be reposting my link. Thanks for leaving it alone this time. John
 * Others may have temporarily gotten away with it but their links have been removed too. To have a link included now you'll need to present a compelling case here. Anarchy is not an option. (I'm now the third person to remove your link, please play fair.) --angusj 23:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with Angusj. This article has been a magnet for (literally) hundreds of Sudoku webmasters looking to boost their traffic, therefore we've had to adopt a stricter strategy for external links than is used elsewhere on Wikipedia. You've just said, "I tried to be nice and play by the rules, but not anymore". Well, here's the deal (and sorry for being blunt, but...): either you play by the rules, or I will block you for link spamming. &mdash; Matt Crypto 00:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Once again I have to say im confussed, when i read about the post by Apoc2400, the guy that decided on the links he specifically said that if anyone disagreed then they could change it. The status quo you have been defending wasnt decided on by anyone. Do you guys get some power trip thing from this? ~john
 * It's quite clear from your contributions that the only thing you are here on Wikipedia to do is to try and get the Sudoku article to include a link to your site, just like the dozens of other Sudoku webmasters. Believe it or not, Wikipedia editors are actually here to try and write decent encyclopedia articles, so don't question our motivations as being some sort of "power trip". On the contrary, your motivation for foisting a link to your site on this page is quite evident -- you just want to increase hits to your site. It's pretty bad form to continually try and post links to your own web site when they're neither needed or wanted, so please stop. &mdash; Matt Crypto 15:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Wrong, most of the people who have talked here have their own site for sudoku. So its not like they are unbiased either.  Just cause I haven't found a site written by you doesn't mean there isnt one.  Also I think people come to this article to get the best place for sudoku puzzles.  This means that not only is my site wanted, it is needed. Just not by you.  I however will continue to try and provide the best puzzle possible regardless of what you want.  Cheers.  ~john

Listen I think the responses that are seething from the admins here seems to be one of anything but advice and help. Anyway out of the sites you have listed I thought Number-logic.com was just as good or better then the other sites you have listed. Anyway my vote is for free speach and inclusion of Number-logic.com. The ability to learn Soduku puzzles was provided to me by this site. So admins try to be a little more helpful, like the site your blocking. ~ Jared Johnson

i like tacos, hamsters and sudoku puzzles. i like sudoku puzzles the most... especially number-logic.com. it smells good too. thank you for not assisting my grandmother with her groceries. ~ Mike Berry.

Have to say that Number Logic is far better than any other site I've seen linked by this page. ~smiley


 * John, of course it's not surprising that a number of us here have our own Sudoku websites. That doesn't stop us from being objective about other people's sites. I proposed my site once but left it at that. Also, I don't think getting mates to 'vote' for a site is the way to go as you appear to have done (since your IP and the 3 posts above 'endorsing' your site all come from the Baltimore US region). Personally, I'd rather leave things as they are until a majority of 'regulars' here are convinced that a site really is exceptional. Stick around and become a regular, wikipedia really is egalitarian contrary to your current perception. --angusj 23:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't have a Sudoku website, nor do I frequent Sudoku websites. My concern here is that A) this article doesn't get overwhelmed with dozens of functionally-equivalent Sudoku links, and B) I'm slightly annoyed at this pushy webmaster who won't accept that his site hasn't been chosen, and seems to be resorting to sockpuppetry, edit warring and other tricks to try and force it to be included. From External links: "Wikipedia disapproves strongly of links that are added for advertising purposes. Adding links to one's own page is strongly discouraged." &mdash; Matt Crypto 11:18, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Never having introduced anything to a Wiki before, I'm only guessing how this is done. I've added a bit of discussion relating to analysis and added a link to a page that I think might be useful and unique -- the Sudoku Assistant -- if not, or there's some feeling that my link should not be there, I'll understand. But I think it could be a very popular one, as you can save puzzles and come back to them, and it demonstrates the techniques discussed on this page, particularly the markup. Please take a look. Bob Hanson
 * Hi Bob. Firstly, I thought your solving tips contribution to the Sudoku main page a very helpful addition. However, while I think your Sudoku Assistant webpage interesting, I don't think it's exceptional and, in fairness to so many others who've had their links removed, it should also be removed at least until others have had a chance to consider it (and informally vote on it) here. --angusj 13:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess someone else thought they weren't that interesting. Oh well! Hansonrstolaf 15:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm catching on. If the proper protocol is to remove it and introduce it only here first, I'll do that. The point is not so much the assistant, but that I think the page was lacking clear and *interactive* examples of some of the advanced techniques. One of the interesting facets of the page, I think, is that you can put the puzzle in the URL, thusly: a moderately difficult Sudoku. Thus, my objective isn't really to interject a self-reference here. What I'm interested in doing is giving people an opportunity to try out what is described on the page in "real time." Especially the use of marks, which I learned here a week ago and use extensively now. The "Sudoku Assistant" is probably (though I don't know) quite different from other web pages in that its goal is educational -- teaching how to solve Sudoku puzzles with live content.

But if it's really just seen as "one of many similar" websites, so be it, I guess. Still, there seems to be a legitimate need for people to post links to their pages. What sort of accomodation is there in the Wiki mechanism for that?

One other point -- I think the analysis example recently introduced, with the (2,5 2,5, 1,5) in it is mistaken. This isn't a good example of a 2-cell set (2,5 2,5) because there are other cells in that block that could have 2 and 5 in them, and the top cell can have a 1 in it. Actually what we have here is as (1,2,5) subset consisting of three cells. So you can't -- based solely on this -- eliminate 5 from the bottom row like that. What sets these three cells' contents is the requirement for a 5 in the very center cell of the Sudoku. This and the 1 in that same center row fix the center of that triad to be 2, and the other two to be either 1 or 5.

My point is simply I don't know if I should change this myself or rely on more experienced page authors to do that. Hansonrstolaf 21:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly certain that 25, 25 means you can eliminate other 2's and 5's in that column or square. (specifically because: the top square can only contain either 2 or 5.  That means that the next block down must contain the opposite one.  Therefore, these two blocks are the only ones in this column that can contain those two numbers.  You'll never see 25, 25, 25 in the same row, as there's no possible way to fill those squares in without conflicting) It's a rule that has worked through many many boards I've played.  Isn't this explicitely the n cells can only accomodate n different numbers rule on your page?  (for what it's worth, there's a second illustration I made of the same concept here in case it makes it any more clear)  --Interiot 18:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the top square was actually 1,2,5, unless I'm mistaken. Well, I guess that's gone, too, now. is someone the "primary author" here? How exactly is this Wiki managed? Is it just "rule by the sword"? Hansonrstolaf 15:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Sudoku-Puzzles with PDF creator It's a bit like "Websudoku" (many puzzles, symmetrical ones, print) but here is the possibility to create pdf files. What do you think?

SudokusWeb.com Free daily sudokus for print or play online

M-sudoku GPL sudoku game for your mobile game. I've dowloaded the .jar and played with it for a while on my old siemens s55. It's great.

Sudoku's Solutions &mdash; Explains step-by-step results. Play online and print grids.


 * I removed the above entry from the article and am placing it here for consideration. No vote. Al 12:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

BrainBashers Sudoku &mdash; Daily Sudoku and interactive assistant, not a solver (not intended to be), but a useful level of assistance in taking away the tedium of manual pencil marking.

SudokuShop &mdash; A complete range of sudoku related merchandise - dry-wipe boards, electronic handheld games, board games, books, pc games and solvers, desk accessories such as mugs and mouse mats, 2006 calendars, greeting cards, download and print pdf puzzles. Probably the widest selection in one place on the net. Surely worth inclusion?
 * No. This is an encyclopedia, not an advertising billboard for all things Sudoku. --angusj 23:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hold on a moment. I agree that a store is not something we should link to casually, but take a metaperspective - isn't the fact that there's a shop out there that sells ONLY Sudoku merchandise indicative of something?  It tells me that there's a sentence missing from the main article, that's what it tells me.  This link is worthy of research at the minimum.  - ZM
 * Zotmeister 23:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * A bricks and mortar shop certainly, but I'm not convinced by a web domain 'shop'. Still gets my tentative no, but I agree it's a lot better that quite a number of other proposals here. --angusj 11:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * online Sudoku solverThis is an online program which uses deterministic maths to solve ANY sudoku puzzle

I'm just about to nuke this whole section (by archiving it) unless there's vocal opposition. My observation is that the sites 'proposed' for inclusion aren't significantly better than the current list which seems very adequate under the circumstances. --angusj 11:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'm seeing lots of new sudoku sites that are an improvement over earlier ones. An example is Fiendish Sudoku which is the first site I've found that offers truly hard daily puzzles. Its online solver also has the nicest interface I've yet seen (tabbed interface, hints, solution steps, undo/redo, multiple grid sizes). It links to Wikipedia and is available in multiple languages. Kristinw 02:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that some sites were arguably better than the one online puzzle link that made it into the list (because it was one of the first). However, I see that even that link has been removed in the last day or so. Where there's now a link to Sudoku in Open Directory Project (which apparantly has some editorial control), that's probably the best compromise considering the endless problems with unvetted additions here. Anyhow, while a number of very good sites have been proposed, none of them have attracted a clear consensus for inclusion. My vote is to leave the external links section exactly as it is now. --angusj 13:13, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Metalinks (links to link pages)
Along with selecting a few high quality links ourselves, we might also consider providing links to a page that itself lists large numbers of Sudoku resources on the Web. That way, the reader gets the best of both worlds; he can visit the "reviewed links", but he also has a way to find lots of sites if he chooses &mdash; and this is achieved without cluttering the article with dozens of links. &mdash; Matt Crypto 12:46, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly (see my comments above) CiaronNixon 12:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Something like this is what I'm thinking of: Sudoku/Resources. This could then be linked from Sudoku under "See Also". CiaronNixon 16:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe pages that are solely collections of external links are discouraged: see this policy: "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. Wikipedia articles are not... mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding to an article a list of content-relevant links; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." (Emphasis not mine, by way ;-) &mdash; Matt Crypto 17:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This occured to me too, however my interpretation of that policy is that an article should not consist just of ("mere") links, therefore there is nothing wrong with an established article having a sub-page that is just basically links. In my opinion a sub-page would solve the 3 problems we have here: 1) not cluttering an article with 101 links 2) having to constantly revert people adding links 3) allowing people to add sites without this kind of moderation process. CiaronNixon 17:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure, OK, I (at least) don't have any objection to a subpage, although I think we should still decide on a handful of links for this main page. &mdash; Matt Crypto 18:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm also not keen on a large links page. If you want that then use a search engine. The oustanding benefit of Wikipedia is it's edited & maintained by enthusiasts & experts who should collectively be able to decide what's meritorious. --angusj 11:50, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * My point above still applies, its not as if we're replacing Sudoku with a bunch of links and just links. This way we still have the established article, but with an additional subpage for the links that are not chosen to be included in the main article. After all an encyclopedia is a tool for research and in doing research you need sources. CiaronNixon 12:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sudoku/Resources will be impossible to control (as it was before when on the main page). Every young enthusiast with their new xls or javascrpt solver will be adding their "contribution" and the editorial control will remain non-existent. --angusj 23:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to put forward Andrew Gregory's excellent Sudoku program for PalmOS. It's free, smaller than most, and excellent in its feature set. It can generate its own games or you can input yours, it includes solver strategies and checking, and it's quite fast to top it off (plus, he speaks highly of F/OSS and has a link or two to Wikipedia in his pages. I like a man who supports the same kinds of stuff I do) ;) --Southpaw018 17:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Subsections or Links for exclusion:
Subsection titled "Commentary on the sudden popularity of Sudoku in Britain and India" Votes to exclude: Votes to retain:
 * angusj (too many links, too 'parochial' and of limited general interest)
 * &mdash; Matt Crypto 09:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC) (btw I've trimmed the number of links to two; one for Britain, one for India)
 * Matteo 09:03, August 9, 2005 (UTC) I would really limit the number of links in a Wikipedia article. It should be an article and not a link reference list.

Trademarked?
The article reads: "Nikoli still holds the trademark for the name Sudoku". Is this true outside of Japan? &mdash; Matt Crypto 09:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I second that question. I know that Nikoli is getting their puzzles published outside Japan now, still under the title Sudoku, but the actual nature of their agreements with those publishers is unknown to me.  Whether or not any licensing agreements include any mention of trademark handling is of great interest to me.  - ZM  Zotmeister 19:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * If you look at the Nokoli website - http://www.nikoli.co.jp/en/ - you'll see Sudoku mentioned quite a few times but never with a TM or (R) symbol. If Nikoli does claim a trademark over the name Sudoku (registered or otherwise) - which appears unlikely, then they're not defending it. -angusj 13:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Just found a webpage at the Nokoli site - http://www.nikoli.co.jp/puzzles/1/index_text-e.htm - containing this: "Sudoku" is Nikoli's registered mark in Japan. So, other companies call it "Number Place". So they do appear to be defending their trademark over Sudoku in Japan at least. -angusj 13:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The References section
Two notes: (1) The obvious: the References section is only for links whose material is used as part of the article's composition. No one should be adding a link to it unless they are adding more info the article based on what lies beyond it. (2) The easily verifyable: I have confirmed that all links present in the References section (as of my typing this) are in fact used properly as article references. They all belong there and should not be deleted. (One person tried to delete a link from it that his own edit referenced!) - ZM Zotmeister 19:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure, or slightly more generally, the References can be used by a reader to verify the facts in the article for themselves; they don't always have to be the same sources as originally used to write the article, although that will often be the case. &mdash; Matt Crypto 00:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Why "Sudoku/Resources" is a bad solution
I notice that somebody has created a separate page, called Sudoku/Resources, containing nothing but external links. This goes against several established Wikipedia policies, and seems to be a bad solution to the problem of managing external links on this page: As for the problem of the article being a magnet for links, I think we just need to be extremely harsh in choosing which links stay. If there are only a bare handful of links on the page, people are not going to think that their link is significant enough to fit in; the larger a list of links grows, on the other hand, the less big a deal it seems to add one more link. My solution would therefore be to import a very small number of links back from the "resources" page, and diligently stick to our guns that that's all we need. If there's a category on dmoz or something with a good long list of links, we can link to there, since that's their job - but it's not ours. - IMSoP 14:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Subpages explains why subpages should not be used in the main namespace. At the very least, the fact that the software does not treat "/" specially in article titles means that the page should be moved - to List of sudoku resources, perhaps.
 * 2) What Wikipedia is not states unambiguously that Wikipedia is not a link repository - Sudoku/Resources contradicts the policy that articles are not "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories."
 * I agree completely. --angusj 14:47, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I created it as a subpage specifically for the reason so it wasn't just an article containing just links, think of it as an appendix to the main Sudoku article if you will. As I said above I do not believe this contravenes "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories" as the main article still exists and in fact Sudoku/Resources is not an article in itself. CiaronNixon 15:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, but that's where Subpages comes in - there is, in terms of the software configuration and in terms of policy, no such thing as a sub-page in the main namespace. So something called "Sudoku/Resources" is as much an article in its own right as if it were called "List of Sudoku resources". Furthermore, even if we do consider the extra page as an "appendix", we're back where we started, which is that the Sudoku article now has far more external links than are necessary for an encyclopedia article - pages such as External links talk about adding a few relevant links. I can see that this was a well-meaning attempt to solve the problem, but I don't think it fits well with accepted Wikipedia practice. - IMSoP 19:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * There is indeed a category on dmoz: Games: Puzzles: Brain Teasers: Sudoku. I am sure the editor(s) there would love to get some good quality link suggestions. Al 12:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * ...And since I just reinstated my editor account primarily to flesh out the Sudoku section a dmoz, I can unequivocally say yes, please, send over your links. Al 14:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Al - I've submitted a few links to that dmoz category in response to your suggestion. I'll submit more if I see any response there. However, you could just go to  for links - they are already sorted, etc.. As a sweetener, I cleaned up the "Palm" subsection there ( I have 9 Sudoku programs on my Palm). Another good source is Top Sudoku Sites or Essential Sudoku Links RAFowell 22:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Outstanding. I'll see if I can free up a little time to do some editing there. Of course someone has removed the link to the ODP category in the External Links section. Al 17:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Origin
A recent edit changed:
 * "Originally called simply Number Place, the first puzzle was created by Howard Garnes, a freelance puzzle constructor, in 1979."

to
 * "The puzzle was created by Leonhard Euler a swiss mathematician from the 18. century. He called it Carré latin."

I looked up "Carré Latin" on the French Wikipedia and it seems to be referring to Latin Squares. Completed Sudoku grids are Latin squares, of course, but they have additional structure (the 3x3 subsquares are permutations too). So I'm reverting, unless there's a source which identifies Euler as creating Sudoku's specifically. &mdash; Matt Crypto 23:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That isn't the first time someone has tried to reduce Sudoku to "Latin square" in this article. In fact, it's frequent enough to make me view it as vandalism.  I've been reverting them whenever I find them.  - ZM Zotmeister 16:27, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Since there is a similarity between the two types of puzzle, perhaps it is worth including a mention - and to point out the differences between the two types of puzzle? This also might save people adding Latin Square information, thinking that it has been omitted. I would find it hard to consider this vandalism, since people are clearly adding the information with good intent, albeit misinformed.


 * People? Plural?  I'm not convinced that it isn't the same individual over and over again.  At any rate, the Latin square is not a puzzle - it is a mathematical construct, and as such is referenced in the Mathematics section of the article.  (It was one of my earliest additions to the article!)  Latin squares have their own Wikipedia article, which is linked to and by the Sudoku article; any more information on Latin squares one may have belongs in that article, not this one.  - ZM  Zotmeister 17:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

This article from The Economist also puts its origin in Latin squares. Al 12:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Subpage removed
As discussed above and again, Wikipedia policy is not to use "sub-pages" in the article namespace, and not to have articles which are "mere collections of external links". Since Sudoku/Resources is, depending on your interpretation, one, the other, or both, I am going to remove the reference to it from the article, and move the page itself to a sub-page of this discussion, called /links to consider (I'll probably also ask for the resulting redirect to be deleted). Clearly, lots of people want to list links to Sudoku-related resources, but hosting that list really isn't the job of an encyclopedia; if somebody does it somewhere else, linking to that list would definitely be useful. Maybe dmoz, or Wikia, or a Sudoku Wikicity or something...

Meanwhile, as the new name implies, I think the existing list will be useful as a starting point for suggesting and discussing new links for the article. I've added back the few which Apoc2400 added earlier - it's not like this is an unreversible decision, it just seemed better than leaving the section completely blank until such time as more discussion takes place. Opinions on my actions are, of course, welcome, but what would be really good would be to get back down to finding which links to include. - IMSoP 20:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm in full agreement with you removing the 'resources' page. I tried to instigate an informal vote (see above) to acertain which links should and should not be included, but so far it's attracted little interest. Is there a better way to canvass opinion? Also, I think the current link to "web sudoku" will be an unhelpful catalyst for others wanting to add to main page without discussion here so I've removed that link. The 3 forums which did get support in the 'votes' section above are reasonable to retain. --angusj 00:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Can you recommend another page with a large amount of sudokus easily accessible? I think it is important, since many people probably come to this article to find a such link. --Apoc2400 08:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it has now become clear there is only really one solution that will be at least acceptable by all concerned, that is, to have only links to pages used as references (as current) and no other external links apart from a link out to a directory page or two since the existance of such a page within Wikipedia seems to be met with such hostility for various reasons. CiaronNixon 13:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't think anyone would consider a handful of links to a variety of resources unacceptable - we'd have to make sure it didn't just grow and grow again, but any article benefits from a few general "onward links". The existence of a separate page is only "met with hostility" for the same reason having half the article as links was - it dilutes Wikipedia's main goal of being an encyclopedia; so far, Wikipedia has done better than some similar projects at defining its purpose and sticking to it, and I think that has helped it immensely. - IMSoP 15:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * A handful of links might be a good solution, however its not practical in this case as it is just going to grow and constantly need reverting. Only just today I had to get an admin to intervene because of the edits by 212.159.50.145. With no links, people will not be tempted to add others and it treats everyone with a promotional interest fairly: no one website is favoured. The main problem in having the links in the main article was that the list was just too physically big. Many people had no objection to it being a seperate page/subpage, after all the Subpage guideline is just that, a guideline. There is a problem here, and the solution of a seperate page (whether in WP namespace or external) is without doubt the fairest one for all parties and is one which may be a little different, but still keeps the core policies of Wikipedia clearly in sight, yes Wikipieda is a Encyclopedia, but it is not a paper one, and as such has no boundaries spacial or otherwise and editors should not be afraid of applying a little flexibility.
 * I agree with CiaronNixon that the best compromise is to have reference links only. Perhaps a brief statement such as - "There are many Sudoku websites where puzzles can be downloaded or solved online. These can be found using an internet search engine." --angusj 22:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think a few non-reference links in this article would be useful, maybe 10 or so. It's easy enough to simply revert any unwanted additions. A links subpage makes a good flytrap for the anon spammers, but I don't think it fits well within Wikipedia practice. Doesn't bother me, though ;-) &mdash; Matt Crypto 22:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * OK. Let me propose: 1. Web Sudoku Excellent site. Simple, uncluttered online solver. 2. Paul's Pages, a popular, well presented site with puzzles online (with no java applets etc) 3. My own Simple Sudoku website offers a sophisticated freeware puzzle maker and solver (for Windows) and also has extensive solving tips. 4. SadMan Sudoku Highly commendable site as it has a well reviewed shareware puzzle maker & solver and also excellent solving tips. --angusj 23:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * How about a section like this? Make it plain that the Wikipedia is not looking for links, redirect those seeking/placing links to the referenced directories, and indicate that only link directories that provide the added value of organization and annotation will be referenced here. This should minimize maintenance while providing good quality to the users by "subcontracting" the link selection/organization/annotation to sites that are already doing this. [rafowell, 8/20/2005, 0600 PST]


 * Suduko Link Directories: 


 * The Wikipedia is not a link directory, but this need is served by these organized, annotated Sudoku link directories:


 * Top Sudoku Sites - 14 categories


 * Essential Guide and Links to SuDoku - 7 categories


 * I agree with a short list of links (<= 10), of which the first should be an online generator (such as websudoku.com), and the last should be a link directory (such as one of the two above). Having no external links would reduce the article quality a lot. It can't be that hard to revert frivolous links, especially with all the warning comments there now. --Apoc2400 13:41, 21 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I am very disappointed to see my link (Sudoku-Help) removed from this excellent article, especially since I offered to remove it myself (Help Desk Archive 19: Query 186), because I thought it might be seen as being against the Wikipedia spirit for it to be there. The Wikipedia community (you guys) decided back then that it had a right to stay. I understand the reason for this discussion however, with the explosion in the number of links. But I don't think you, me or even the Zotmeister, should set themselves up as judge and jury on whose links should stay and whose should go. I reckon it should be all-in or all-out. I think the suggestion above to just include a link (or two) to a page of links is the best. Sudokuonline - also listed above is the most comprehensive one I have found, and it doesn't seem to have any particular barrow to push other than providing the best page of Sudoku links it possibly can. The links are sensibly categorised and it appears that it is being constantly updated with new links being added every week. They also Review each site linked adding some unbiased, honest commentary on what you will find at each site. My own site has gone down many hundreds of places in the search engines by virtue of its removal from this article, and I am prepared to accept that in the Wikipedia spirit - but so then should everybody else whose links were once here, and also those who are lucky enough for the self-appointed jury to consider their site sufficiently "worthy" to still be listed. I would stand by these comments even if the jury decided to make my site one of the "lucky" few. --sudoku-help-greg 14:08, 23 August 2005


 * Why do I always get singled out... Oh well. Honestly, I don't really care about external links; the main article (with its References section) is the extent of my concern.  I don't care if there are zero or a hundred links as long as they are separated from the main article.  What I do take issue with is those that try to squeeze their links into the main article without adding info, and especially the one who decided to circumvent the whole deal and give "SudokuMeister" its own article in the Wikipedia.  That's quite naughty.  - ZM Zotmeister 15:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe it is an idea to add a link to The Biggest Sudoku Links List with more than 300 links to puzzles, solvers, downloads, forums, communities.


 * You get singled out Zotmeister because it is your fantastic article and so if anybody should be the final arbiter it is you. I note my site has been gone from External Links a lot longer than I thought, zapped by Matt Crypto when on 24 July he decided to wipe a whole bunch of links. Mine (Sudoku-Help) had been there since 31st May, probably before Matt had even read the article. I still think it should be either "all in" or all out with the exception of a couple of links to pages with lots of links, of which I think Sudokuonline is best for quality and the jouwpagina one is best for quantity. - Sudoku-Help-Greg 14:12, 24 August 2005
 * I'm afraid I disagree with both your choices - 'best quality' comes with too many ads for a start; and google would be a better choice for best quantity (ie long lists with little or no editorial comment is no better than a search engine). --angusj 13:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I still think we should have one link to a sudoku generator. Anyone disagree? Any site better than websudoku.com? Also, we need a link collection site. sudokuonline.co.uk seems most popular. To those who are disappointed that their links have been removed: I understand how you feel. However, out goal here is to make a good article, not to be fair among webmasters. --Apoc2400 20:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * What makes you think sudokuonline.co.uk is more popular than sudoku.jouwpagina ?


 * It has been recommended by three people here. sudoku.jouwpagina has been recommended by two. --Apoc2400 22:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * RAFowell For the single link to a sudoku generator, both Vegard Hanssen's page or Jaap Scherphuis's sudoku generator provide more value than websudoku.com They provide much more control over, and information about, the generated Sudoku puzzles than websudoku.com.  If you only link one sudoku generator, I'd say Vegard's page is the leading candidate. I compare the pages below.


 * Websudoku.com offers four levels of difficulty, generates a reference number that can be used by the user to revisit or to send to someone else to try, lets you print or solve online (with timer, if you like), and will tell you (if asked) if you have gone astray. They link to the Wikipedia. Since they sell puzzle services, I expect they claim copyright on generated puzzles. They do include a copyright notice on the printout.


 * Vegard Hanssen's page provides a "print" option, or you can solve online using the "solve puzzle" option below the puzzle. You can click on the "check" button below the puzzle to see if you have gone astray. You can select puzzles in eight levels of difficulty, three types of symmetry, or by number of givens (28 choices). Web page response is fast - he draws from 6895702 pregenerated puzzles. Each puzzle has a reference number that can be used to revisit or to send to someone else to try. This site also offers tutorial information on solving Sudoku information under Reducing Methods. Puzzles can be directly linked, and list below the puzzle the logical solution techniques Vegard's software found necessary to solve the puzzle. For example, the hyperlinks SiSo SC SB DS DC displayed under Puzzle 1755709 lead to definitions and worked examples of the "Single Solution", "Single Cell", "Single Box" and "Disjoint Subset" methods needed to logically solve this puzzle. The site also offers Sudoku Variants puzzles, such as the 5x5, constrained diagonal, and about 25 other types.  Vegard also links to the Wikipedia. Vegard's page is available in both Norwegian and English. Vergard also claims copyright on the generated puzzles.


 * Jaap Scherphuis's sudoku generator will not let you solve online, does not offer a special print option, provide for variants, nor link to the Wikipedia. However, it offers several features that Vegard's site does not. You can manually set as many of the "given" values as you like, which allows computer-assisted manual puzzle creation. It will highlight givens which are "excess" (can be deleted without changing the unique solution), which I've found interesting when I entered various newspaper puzzles. Since it shows the unique solution to an manually entered puzzle, it acts as a solver as well. It provides a solution log (if checked) and rates puzzles by difficulty - the puzzle that Vegard rates as hardest, Puzzle 2155141, is rated 115 in difficulty (the solution log for this one includes guesses). Jaap explicitly disclaims copyright restrictions on the generated puzzles - this is the only generation site I've found that does so.


 * Just noting that judging by puzzle 2155141, Vegard's site is not generating proper, symmetrical sudoku, so I certainly wouldn't want to link to it from here! Tom


 * RAFowell 7 Oct 2005 Good point - although Vegard's site will serve only symmetrical Sudoku if asked Symmetrical Sudoku Generator, or with a specified number of givens Puzzles with specified number of Givens Vegard's site includes both asymmetric puzzles, and puzzles with more than 30 givens (though he does mention the 30 given constraint).


 * The folks who named Sudoku (Nikoli) require both constraints, so this is a mark against Vegard's site. However, no site is perfect - we have to settle for the best. I think Vegard is still in the running, due to the other strengths listed above. Western usage doesn't seem to be hard over on the symmetry and givens constraints - many Western Sudoku newspapers, books, and sites don't enforce these. However, if Vegard's site were chosen, a caveat like the one below would be appropriate:


 * Vegard Hanssen's Sudoku Puzzles and variants (Note: Not all meet the Nikoli criteria of symmetry and 30 or fewer givens)